Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179631 Views
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #450 on: October 30, 2007, 03:43:04 PM »
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.

Narc, how about this line of reasoning.

If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?

Probably more water

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #451 on: October 30, 2007, 03:44:02 PM »
But seriously, I raised a challenge to all RE'ers and none came through. How then have I been proven wrong? If anything, RE'ers lack of success proves me right.
WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOUR ASSTARDNESS FOR THE PAST 23 PAGES?

YOU haven't responded, YOU are like you don't seem to know what's going on. You just say "So you admit your model is wrong" not caring about rest of the post. And just some pages ago your response to Trekky's very clear and easy to understand explanation was "Wrong", and you did not provide any evidence or even your bullshit theories of WHY is it wrong.

Why has "none came through" is because you're an idiot with no skills of seeing things (I actually wonder if you can read at all) and because you're plain stupid.

Seriously, stop trying. If Narc hasn't got it yet, he never will.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #452 on: October 30, 2007, 03:44:43 PM »
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.

Narc, how about this line of reasoning.

If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?

Probably more water

Jesus Christ, please deliver us.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #453 on: October 30, 2007, 03:48:01 PM »
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.

Narc, how about this line of reasoning.

If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?

Probably more water

So what replaces it when there is no water left and the whole ocean is floating?
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

?

Iskaros

  • 70
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Cover up
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #454 on: October 30, 2007, 03:49:47 PM »
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling.

Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.

How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?

What then is its buoyancy force?

Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.


Another victory for FE!!!

It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in water
"Always take an oblique approach" General Flavius Belisarius

I'm a teenager big whoop teenagers can be smart (every once in a million years)

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #455 on: October 30, 2007, 03:49:51 PM »
Probably more water

Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #456 on: October 30, 2007, 03:53:04 PM »
Probably more water

Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.

Sure it would, and no RE'er can contest it without becoming enraged and speaking in tongues. You are a funny lot.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #457 on: October 30, 2007, 03:53:36 PM »
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.

If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #458 on: October 30, 2007, 03:55:13 PM »
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.

If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?

I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #459 on: October 30, 2007, 03:56:54 PM »
Boy, he just don't geddit do 'e?
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #460 on: October 30, 2007, 03:57:58 PM »
I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.

Ok. That clears up that misunderstanding. Apology accepted. Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #461 on: October 30, 2007, 03:59:00 PM »
Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?

No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #462 on: October 30, 2007, 04:00:09 PM »
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.

Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #463 on: October 30, 2007, 04:00:43 PM »
Smarticus, I am beyond the point of trying to convince you. I'm just going to let you continue your dellusion while the rest of us debate the actual theory.

Smarticus, the next Tom Bishop??
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #464 on: October 30, 2007, 04:02:09 PM »
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.

Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.

And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.

HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #465 on: October 30, 2007, 04:04:14 PM »
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.

Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.

And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.

So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #466 on: October 30, 2007, 04:05:36 PM »
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.

Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.

And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.

HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!

Or because it is accelerated into the container by graivitation.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #467 on: October 30, 2007, 07:11:39 PM »
Shit, Narcbery is stupid.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #468 on: October 30, 2007, 07:39:20 PM »
It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in water
Best post of this entire thread.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Iskaros

  • 70
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Cover up
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #469 on: October 30, 2007, 07:45:43 PM »
It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in water
Best post of this entire thread.

That's what you get when you ask parents for back up
(never doing that again)
"Always take an oblique approach" General Flavius Belisarius

I'm a teenager big whoop teenagers can be smart (every once in a million years)

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #470 on: October 30, 2007, 07:57:22 PM »
It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in water
Best post of this entire thread.

It's sort of true.  The buoyant force counteracts the gravitational force.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #471 on: October 30, 2007, 08:09:23 PM »
If that was the case, you could say 'gravity' works differently on the ground than it does on an airplane. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #472 on: October 30, 2007, 09:07:51 PM »
It doesn't exactly "work differently", but it does have a different effect in different mediums.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #473 on: October 30, 2007, 09:24:35 PM »
Example?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #474 on: October 30, 2007, 09:58:27 PM »
Helium balloon and rock: Fall at same speed in vacuum.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #475 on: October 30, 2007, 10:49:11 PM »
So, how does that indicate that 'gravity' works differently in air than it does in a vacuum?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

providence

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #476 on: October 30, 2007, 11:13:43 PM »
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth, and was reading through the forum, when i found this interesting topic, and had to register lol

well anyways flat earth society almost had me there, because I was just reading and the argument that the round earth people gave were the same thing and they really did not refute this at all.

Ok, this is what I think.

I totally agree with smarticus when he said water is weightless in water, but for that to actually make the water fly around it  means that the the condition of water having to be in water has to be met at all times.

If we assume that the water does float because it is not affected by gravity, as soon as the part of the water start flying off, the outside is exposed from water and is not weightless anymore, meaning that gravity starts to work on the water again. Assuming that what smarticus said is true (which i am assuming) giant body of water still does not fly because every time it affect of gravity get canceled by buoyancy force and start to fly, the molecules that seperate from the other water molecule get affected by gravity instantaneously.

Which is my conclusion :P  thus this argument cannot be used against re  cause it has a flaw xD (and yes my english is bad gosh ...)

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #477 on: October 30, 2007, 11:15:36 PM »
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth,

Your school must be part of the conspiracy. Watch out.

?

providence

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #478 on: October 31, 2007, 12:43:01 AM »
lol  prolly  my horrible English confused you, but what i just now said was that what smarticus says may be true in one aspect but it is not in another.

Yeah so i was siding the RE :P cause even if water has 0 weight in water it does not make large bodies of water float

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #479 on: October 31, 2007, 12:46:34 AM »
No problem.

Water doesn't float. Smarticus is just having fun. However, some people fall for it, which is why this thread is over 25 pages now.